« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 3
This proposed law would allow licensed and other authorized providers of child care in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system to bargain collectively with the relevant state agencies about all terms and conditions of the provision of child care services under the state's child care assistance program and its regulations. Under the proposed law, these family child care providers who provide state-subsidized child care would not be considered public employees, but if 30% of the providers gave written authorization for an employee organization to be their exclusive representative in collective bargaining, the state Labor Relations Commission would hold a secret mail ballot election on whether to certify that organization as the exclusive representative. Parts of the state's public employee labor relations law and regulations would apply to the election and collective bargaining processes. The proposed law would not authorize providers to engage in a strike or other refusal to deliver child care services. An exclusive representative, if certified, could then communicate with providers to develop and present a proposal to the state agencies concerning the terms and conditions of child care provider services. The proposed law would then require the parties to negotiate in good faith to try to reach a binding agreement. If the agreed-upon terms and conditions required changes in existing regulations, the state agencies could not finally agree to the terms until they completed the required procedures for changing regulations and any cost items agreed to by the parties had been approved by the state Legislature. If any actions taken under the proposed law required spending state funds, that spending would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Any complaint that one of the parties was refusing to negotiate in good faith could be filed with and ruled upon by the Labor Relations Commission. An exclusive representative could collect a fee from providers for the costs of representing them. An exclusive representative could be de-certified under Commission regulations and procedures if certain conditions were met. The Commission could not accept a decertification petition for at least 2 years after the first exclusive representative was certified, and any such petition would have to be supported by 50% or more of the total number of providers. The Commission would then hold a secret mail ballot election for the providers to vote on whether to decertify the exclusive representative. The proposed law states that activities carried out under it would be exempt from federal anti-trust laws. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Question 3: Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 3, 2006?

View as: # | %  
County Blank Votes Total Votes Cast
Barnstable More »
 
43,655
51,745
10,000
105,400
Berkshire More »
 
20,719
19,878
6,151
46,748
Bristol More »
 
65,256
83,136
20,987
169,379
Dukes More »
 
3,206
3,313
1,180
7,699
Essex More »
 
101,601
128,549
30,338
260,488
Franklin More »
 
14,646
11,024
3,132
28,802
Hampden More »
 
60,442
61,788
14,815
137,045
Hampshire More »
 
29,630
21,949
5,260
56,839
Middlesex More »
 
227,498
248,759
62,187
538,444
Nantucket More »
 
1,871
1,505
656
4,032
Norfolk More »
 
106,723
128,098
26,825
261,646
Plymouth More »
 
74,433
91,710
17,064
183,207
Suffolk More »
 
94,129
62,816
24,320
181,265
Worcester More »
 
107,708
127,983
27,150
262,841
Totals 951,517 1,042,253 250,065 2,243,835